there is a lot of information in this thread. could you confirm which line you edited in which file?

its easy to try stuff out if youre having this problem and can reboot to tell if its fixed-- its less easy to just try out if youre not having this problem and want to prevent it. hence "which line" and "which file" (and what change) if someone could confirm, thanks.

you changed: allow-hotplug eth0

to: auto eth0

in the file: /etc/network/interfaces ?

thanks.

a very understandable assumption, but incorrect; as i guessed, due to the fact that im running icewm, elogind is simply nowhere on the entire system.

there is in the fig os installer i think, even a .so with pam-elogind but it did not install, likely due to not being needed. would it if needed? probably-- havent tried it. very much of note: this system was dist-upgraded from devuan/refracta/fig os jessie. that could be it, too.

slightly related: is elogind still "beta" like or how long has it been in common use in devuan?

its a vague question that welcomes a vague answer-- about a component being used as part of a solution (or seemingly related to) software talked about in this thread. just looking for a simple opinion (at least that suffices) from a user or anybody familiar.

true-- that option youre talking about now was also mentioned. again the real problem is that this is always presented as technical solutions... the problem is technical, the solution is technical, but (as steve litt likes to point out) the source of the problem is not really very technical at all.

between the actual monopolies like microsoft (edge is a monopoly, and the browser is not a good idea to use because it still has every problem that it did when it was called internet explorer) and very free solutions like well-- making your own with python and webkit (i know, even mentioning webkit weakens the argument a bit-- try to stay with me though)

there are companies that come along and try to make these things more monopolistic. red hats ceo has talked about the advantage and strategy around this very thing (again, steve litt talks about this a lot.) red hat is the biggest example. microsoft is one-- the more it "loves linux" the more this will happen. mozilla is doing this-- probably not because its in their nature to do so, but because (like when red hat coders changed the culture at freedesktop) people go work for mozilla and make it less like a non-profit and more like a business.

business isnt the problem, money isnt the problem (imo) though greed and monopoly are. so a few paragraphs arent enough to prove what you probably already grasp so why explain it here... my point is simply that theres is a cultural shift in so many of these things we were able to rely on-- and now they are all less reliable, and we keep scrambling to find replacements like many of us did in the days when we used windows. "oh! i hate the new explorer, heres a replacement file manager, its 'freeware' and theres 'no nags'" remember those days?

only now its happening in the free software world-- nag windows (slightly different, but still familiar...) about plugins we like, being told what init we are going to use and basically "suck it up or gtfo" and turning nicely de-coupled components into tangles of overengineered nonsense.

this isnt just a "design philosophy" but the way that corporations create products they control. and while free software has a lot of immunity to that, a sort of auto-immune design takeover is slowly creeping into our browsers, inits, hardware management, power management, disk management, file open dialogs, scroll windows, browser plugin managers, file mounting (android gvfs) printing (avahi networking) sound (pulse coupled with browsing and skype)

what a mess!

this is neither a technical thing nor is it a big secret conspiracy. its a very open takeover of all our mainstream software by companies whose advertising has valentines hearts, and whose employees (l5t) call us 4-letter words and neckbeards.

but of course... we were talking about browsers. and whats happened to our browsers is-- this cultural (not technical) problem. lisi says we should say thank you and be grateful for the volunteers.

if i come water your garden and everything dies and i say "its your fault for not using roundup-resistant flowers, i was using an enterprise garden watering solution, youre using some kind of old-fashioned organic stuff which is fine but it doesnt scale" then youre going to sue me, right?

except in this instance, we let them in. we told them to do the watering. and now we are stuck with the results (three years running.) "thank you" is nice, but we got a little more than we bargained for.

even if we win (we probably will) did anybody notice that corporations still set free software back several years or longer?

we got too lax. so taking lisis advice: thank you microsoft lobbyists, thank you sco, thank you linus and open source initiative, thank you red hat and thank you suse for showing us how much we stopped doing what we should have done to prevent this.

now we fix it. i really do mean "we," because if users had refused this stuff all along, the developers would not be able to justify most of it. i have developed things, but one of the problems remaning is we have to fix their problems their way-- no, we can fix things however we please. we didnt trade our choices, we traded the maintainence of an ecosystem we controlled for the maintainence of an ecosystem that benefits large corporations instead. oops.

the next time someone tells you "open source" is more reasonable than free software, they were advocating this all along-- just sit back and let enterprise make it alllllllllllll better. theyre not mutually exclusive! (yes they are. monopolies-- by definition-- are mutually exclusive. its what the word means!)

</rant>

red hat <3 linux

kudos for pointing out the relative weaknesses of firejail-- im sure its clear that (at least from my perspective) im not dissing firejail and im confident it will help more than nothing; its just about figuring out when (and to what extent) its effective and helpful.

im not dissing the kernel i use daily either, but im aware of the advantages (and the downsides) of the bsd kernel. (downsides: convenience. only one i know of, s'why i use the linux one.)

i wouldnt tell people "dont use firejail" and i dont think anybodys said that yet, simply use it and know what its good for (and not good for.) fsr is an advocate of it from what i can tell, and i figure his reasons are good enough. pointing out the limitations is good too, like when you download tor and it says "and this is what tor does not do..." a very important side of things when you do stuff for security reasons.

using noscript and firejail is WAY! better than just noscript, because its better isolation between the browser and the host os.

and if you throw in a good hosts file like the thread says, its even better because now youre totally blocking the worse known offenders who serve the scripts that do the naughty things that noscript could block and firejail may prevent from touching your computer. not bad!

heres the stuff that people miss though, when they run firejail and/or use a good hosts file but dont use noscript (or use yesscript instead):

* cross site vulnerabilities-- you have a rogue script or rogue site that is exploiting vulnerabilities between tabs-- hosts file helps some, firejail maybe none.

* firejailbreakers-- probably very rare if they exist, but noscript may prevent scripts from ever running that theoretically could break through firejail if they ran

* sites with random/dynamic subdomains-- these can totally circumvent host files in some instances. dfskndfcn-zckf95jn.adserver-bs.com

* sites that use ip addresses instead of dns, obviously. noscript will protect you and hosts wont.

you can use hosts.allow and/or hosts.deny (its been too long since ive tried this) to create a hosts whitelist instead of a scripts whitelist. no one is crazy enough to do that, but credit where credit is due to the hosts list-- its a powerful thing if you want it to be, but the resolution isnt very high on it.

tl;dr: firejail is not a noscript replacement; but it is still awesome.

anti-fud disclaimer: i have never (even once) claimed that devuan installs non-free software. ever. one of the devuan devs mentioned an instance in an old beta, and there are new reports here, accurate or otherwise. im not here to comment on those as im sure katolaz will either fix or debunk them. now to address the text ive quoted:

so far, debian and devuan are identical in their treatment of non-free sources.

you are incorrect that devuan or debian "needs to" support non-free software.

you incorrectly refer to those who disagree with your position as "zealots" but you should know how many people you are insulting with that label.

* one: you are insulting me. im sure that doesnt bother you.
* two: katolaz feels the same way about non-free that i do, more or less.
* three: it might interest you that jaromil heads an organisation with such a distro (dyne:bolic) that is on the fsf-approved list.

while i have never complained (maybe once in 2015) that devuan includes non-free software in its installer, there is nothing wrong with doing so.

your blanket statement is dubious; there are developers leading and maintaining devuan who have not chosen to support non-free software, a fact which stands against your claim.

youre welcome to your opinion, but given its one-sidedness i would still point out that it isnt factual-- at all. i mean, theres a very hard line against "fud" around here (so much that its unproductive and encourages the sort of post im making now) but what you said is fud on the other end of the spectrum.

its devuan gnu+linux, check the website. that "gnu" part actually stands for the very thing youre speaking against.

also, when youre making statements against a free software distribution with (for the most part) free software developers, you might point out any personal work you do that would conflict with developers having such a position--

youre calling jaromil and katolaz and myself "zealots" (whether you realise that or not) but there is no full disclaimer as to where you fall on the spectrum or why you might make those comments here, eh? it might be appropriate since youre new here-- and since it may have something to do with your biased statement.

"init freedom" and "software freedom" are related, at least.

to be fair, i when it comes to someone convincing me of the definition of bacon, i am the very first person whose opinion i consider.

its a very nice potato, i like it even more that its graphical.

command line potatoes are very bland and i never eat them without butter and salt.

that is extremely clever! i am talking to you, and my remarks are directed at what you did, but now youre saying i either should (or do) blame someone other than you for the fact that you (and no else) were unfair about this.

its really not someone elses fault if they take your word for it when you said things that were (demonstrably) untrue. i say demonstrably because your recent trolling of the dictionary and english itself is nonsense,

(a suspension is a type of ban, everyone knows that but you call someone a liar for using a word that doesnt suit your preference.)

quickly getting back to the point-- when you dance around the truth this carefully, its not the fault of OTHERS whom youve misled. i agree they shouldnt trust you so easily, but that doesnt mean im interested in putting the blame on THEM for things i know you did personally.

i am thrilled that youre going to split this topic later. it doesnt really belong in this thread (full responsibility there, i dont deny it) and it will be better off somewhere else.

just know that its publically archived, should you feel the urge to pretend it never happened. i know youd just move it to the admin area, but its really not the admins (hi guys!) who would be left to wonder what happened, is it?

to everyone else: sorry to waste your time with this, if i ever get a fair shake here it will be at a different time and a different place. but this is really more like the debian mailing lists than the dng one.

i do not expect this to change today, or even this week. its already been a year or more-- if it wont get fixed, it will still get explained, you know. i thought we were refugees of petulant WONTFIXes over here.

-- ^ lennart poettering https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144

"Your at least made sure that my own interest in helping your efforts goes to zero..." https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998

you do realise, youre offering more than one person the same treatment as lennart here? if you were really honest about any of this, you might find that others arent as apathetic. who really cares if i was treated unfairly here or not? no one, until you do it to enough people-- so we wait! thats alright. split (a good idea, i endorse it) and lets get back on topic then. i will gladly cooperate with that, ive said my piece.

the kernel issue is weird-- https://unix.stackexchange.com/question … inux-libre

although one of the main reasons i switched to debian from trisquel was that it had a blob-free kernel (since debian 6) and was being more responsible than ubuntu about an issue than could damage hardware, i consider it "more free than linux-libre" because it will load non-free modules.

this isnt like the copyleft (gpl) vs permissive (mit) free license thing with gnu/linux vs. bsd fans, its actually a bug in linux-libre that might even be unfixable: http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/anuncio/20 … re.en.html

not only have i talked to the linux-libre author about this, i once purchased a laptop he recommended to me based on the level of "freedom" it had.

so for me personally, the most free version of devuan would be the debian blob-free kernel, no non-free repos (contrib is non-free by extension) and no non-free firmware included.

but i believe thats what you get when you run the script in /root that removes the non-free firmware.

for most people, "libre" means "fsf will be able to add this to their list, like they did with dyne:bolic"

pure anything is a very difficult concept. but the goal of the free software movement is to make *all* software free-as-in-freedom, so that users are never "subjugated." jaromils digital/algorithmic "sovereignty"  likely takes that idea one small (and very interesting) step further; while "open source" (in practice) is a step back.